Reaching maximum efficiency

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

Are teams building robots that play the game perfectly (ignoring factors like price, etc.)?

Another robot that comes to mind was 254 in 2011.

If teams are reaching "maximum efficiency," should FIRST take this into consideration in the design of future games? If so, how?

The short answer is: No, teams aren't building perfect robots. Powerhouses make great robots every year, but the robot that competes at championships is very rarely the same robot that was boxed/bagged at the end of build season. The top teams build good robots, and then work CONTINUOUSLY to improve them.

987's entry at San Diego did not have an extension on their intake system, that was added. In addition, their shot accuracy was nowhere near what they were showing at champs.

1114 and 2056 didn't originally have stingers on their robots, which were instrumental mechanisms in winning their division.

254's 2011 robot added a ramp launcher and iterated many many many times on their minibot over the season to be a top competitor.

67's 2009 robot originally had a turret, which they redesigned and rebuilt during their unbagging period. They then went on to win every field they played on.

I challenge you to find any top tier robot at championships that has not been modified in some way after ship to incorporate fixes and the best ideas that other teams pioneered (including software developments/auto routines). "Perfect" robots are not designed in build season.

In regards to the game, FIRST does try to shake things up a bit. In 2009 they forced teams to play on an unusual surface with special wheels. In 2010 we weren't allowed to take balls more than 3" into the frame perimeter. The past two years, the game objects have been very similar to previous challenges, which meant that teams who had experienced those games often had resources and ideas to prototype from the get-go, and the knowledge of past mistakes to guide them. Even then, powerhouse teams' accuracy was pretty dismal in the first weeks of 2012, as were minibot success rates/speed in 2011. As mentioned before, the teams that ended up with the "best" solutions at the end of the season started with solid drivetrains and other mechanisms which have been iterated on and perfected, giving them more time to spend perfecting the unique elements every year.

[connor.worley]

I was considering iterations before championship as part of the "building" process. Championships is where it matters the most, after all .

[Mulcahy]

I cannot speak for 1717, because I have never been to their shop. (and they are just naturally good!)

But I do know some of 987's secrets...

When I'm not building robots - I'm racing ATV's. I run a pit crew for a Professional Rider, who is constantly being asked, by up and coming racers what they can do to make their machine faster. His answer is not some new whiz bang product. It is practice, Then practice, Then practice some more.
His answer is not unique - almost any professional, in any sport will tell you the same thing.

Whatever your position on a team is, find someone who is better than you and learn everything you can, then find someone who is better than them and learn everything you can, and keep going...

As Nuttyman had pointed out, 987's accuracy was not great at the beginning of the season. The fine tuning happens on the practice field - during hundreds of hours of practicing, and programming revisions. Build a prototype and wear it out. If a part is going to fail, let it show up in practice, and not during an event. If a part does fail during a match, hopefully all of that practice will help your team compensate.

Several Saturdays before the regionals, 987's shop is open to assist with construction, and allow teams without a field to work out the bugs. A schedule is posted on team987.com during the build season. I hope to see you there .